Hands4U:the effects of a multifaceted implementation strategy on hand eczema prevalence in a healthcare setting. Results of a randomized controlled trial

Background. Healthcare workers have an increased risk of developing hand eczema. A multifaceted implementation strategy was developed to implement a guideline to prevent hand eczema among healthcare workers.Objectives. To investigate the effects of the implementation strategy on self-reported hand eczema and preventive behaviour.Methods. A randomized controlled trial was performed. A total of 48 departments (n = 1649) were randomly allocated to the multifaceted implementation strategy or the control group. The strategy consisted of education, participatory working groups, and role models. Outcome measures were self-reported hand eczema and preventive behaviour. Data were collected at baseline, and 3, 6, 9 and 12 months of follow-up.Results. Participants in the intervention group were significantly more likely to report hand eczema [odds ratio (OR) 1.45; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-2.04], and they reported significantly less hand washing (B, -0.38; 95% CI: -0.48 to -0.27), reported significantly more frequent use of a moisturizer (B, 0.30; 95% CI: 0.22-0.39) and were more likely to report wearing cotton undergloves (OR 6.33; 95% CI: 3.23-12.41) than participants in the control group 12 months after baseline.Conclusions. The strategy implemented can be used in practice, as it showed positive effects on preventive behaviour. More research is needed to investigate the unexpected effects on hand eczema.</p

Effects of Anacetrapib in Patients with Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease

BACKGROUND: Patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease remain at high risk for cardiovascular events despite effective statin-based treatment of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels. The inhibition of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) by anacetrapib reduces LDL cholesterol levels and increases high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels. However, trials of other CETP inhibitors have shown neutral or adverse effects on cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 30,449 adults with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive atorvastatin therapy and who had a mean LDL cholesterol level of 61 mg per deciliter (1.58 mmol per liter), a mean non-HDL cholesterol level of 92 mg per deciliter (2.38 mmol per liter), and a mean HDL cholesterol level of 40 mg per deciliter (1.03 mmol per liter). The patients were assigned to receive either 100 mg of anacetrapib once daily (15,225 patients) or matching placebo (15,224 patients). The primary outcome was the first major coronary event, a composite of coronary death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization. RESULTS: During the median follow-up period of 4.1 years, the primary outcome occurred in significantly fewer patients in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (1640 of 15,225 patients [10.8%] vs. 1803 of 15,224 patients [11.8%]; rate ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.85 to 0.97; P=0.004). The relative difference in risk was similar across multiple prespecified subgroups. At the trial midpoint, the mean level of HDL cholesterol was higher by 43 mg per deciliter (1.12 mmol per liter) in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (a relative difference of 104%), and the mean level of non-HDL cholesterol was lower by 17 mg per deciliter (0.44 mmol per liter), a relative difference of -18%. There were no significant between-group differences in the risk of death, cancer, or other serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive statin therapy, the use of anacetrapib resulted in a lower incidence of major coronary events than the use of placebo. (Funded by Merck and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN48678192 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01252953 ; and EudraCT number, 2010-023467-18 .)

Pre-employment examinations for preventing injury, disease and sick leave in workers

Background Many employers and other stakeholders believe that health examinations of job applicants prevent occupational diseases and sickness absence. This is an update of the original Cochrane review (Mahmud 2010). Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of pre-employment examinations of job applicants in preventing occupational injury, disease and sick leave compared to no intervention or alternative interventions. Search methods We searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and PEDro (up to 31 March 2015). We did not impose any restrictions on date, language or publication type. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before-after (CBA) studies, and interrupted time-series (ITS) studies of health examinations to prevent occupational diseases and injuries in job applicants in comparison to no intervention or alternative interventions. Data collection and analysis All five review authors independently selected studies from the updated search for inclusion. We retrieved two new studies with the updated search from 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2015, resulting in a total of eleven studies. Main results We included two RCTs, seven CBA studies and two ITS studies. Nine studies with 7820 participants evaluated the screening process of pre-employment examinations as a whole, and two studies with 2164 participants evaluated the measures to mitigate the risks found following the screening process. The studies were too heterogeneous for statistical pooling of results. We rated the quality of the evidence for all outcomes as very low quality. The two new CBA studies both used historical controls and both had a high risk of bias. Of those studies that evaluated the screening process, there is very low quality evidence based on one RCT that a general examination for light duty work may not reduce the risk for sick leave (mean difference (MD) -0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.47 to 0.29). For army recruits, there is very low quality evidence based on one CBA study that there is a positive effect on fitness for duty after 12 months follow-up (odds ratio (OR) 0.40, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.85). We found inconsistent evidence of an effect of job-focused pre-employment examinations on the risk of musculoskeletal injuries in comparison with general or no pre-employment examination based on one RCT with high risk of bias, and four CBA studies. There is very low quality evidence based on one ITS study that incorporation of a bronchial challenge test may decrease occupational asthma (trend change -2.6, 95% CI -3.6 to -1.5) compared to a general pre-employment examination with lung function tests. Pre-employment examinations may also result in a rejection of the applicant for the new job. In six studies, the rates of rejecting job applicants increased because of the studied examinations, on average, from 2% to 35%, but not in one study. There is very low quality evidence based on two CBA studies that risk mitigation among applicants considered not fit for work at the pre-employment examination may result in a similar risk of work-related musculoskeletal injury during follow-up compared to workers considered fit for work at the health examination. Authors' conclusions There is very low quality evidence that a general examination for light duty work may not reduce the risk for sick leave, but may have a positive effect on fitness for duty for army recruits after 12 months follow-up. There is inconsistent evidence of an effect of job-focused pre-employment examinations on the risk of musculoskeletal injuries in comparison with general or no pre-employment examination. There is very low quality evidence that incorporation of a bronchial challenge test may decrease occupational asthma compared to a general pre-employment examination with lung function tests. Pre-employment examinations may result in an increase of rejecting job applicants in six out of seven studies. Risk mitigation based on the result of pre-employment examinations may be effective in reducing an increased risk for occupational injuries based on very low quality evidence. This evidence supports the current policy to restrict pre-employment examinations to only job-specific examinations. Better quality evaluation studies on pre-employment examinations are necessary, including the evaluation of the benefits of risk mitigation, given the effect on health and on the financial situation for those employees who do not pass the pre-employment examination

Implementation of Recommendations for Hand Eczema Through a Multifaceted Strategy. A Process Evaluation Among Health Care Workers

Process data give important insights into how an intervention is implemented. The aim of the present study is to conduct a process evaluation, alongside a randomised controlled trail, on the implementation of recommendations for the prevention of hand eczema. The intervention was carried out in healthcare workers' departments and consisted of working groups and role models. The role models were selected based on their representativeness, their influence on colleagues, and their motivation. The focus of the working group was to implement recommendations for hand eczema at the department by choosing solutions to overcome barriers for implementation. Out of the 104 solutions, 87 were realised. Solutions regarding moisturisers and use of cotton under gloves, were used by 90.9% and 30.8% of the employees, respectively. Of all participants, 58.2% actively engaged with the role models. This process evaluation showed that the intervention was executed according to protocol and that the solutions were implemented well. However, the role model component in the intervention should be improved

Hands4U: A multifaceted strategy to implement guideline-based recommendations to prevent hand eczema in health care workers: design of a randomised controlled trial and (cost) effectiveness evaluation

Background: Workers in wet work occupations have a risk for developing hand eczema. Prevention strategies exist, but compliance to the proposed recommendations is poor. Therefore, a multifaceted implementation strategy (MIS) is developed to implement these recommendations to reduce hand eczema among health care workers performing wet work. Methods/Design: This study is a randomised controlled trial in three university hospitals in the Netherlands. Randomisation to the control or intervention group is performed at department level. The control group receives a leaflet containing the recommendations only. The intervention group receives the MIS which consists of five parts: 1) within a department, a participatory working group is formed to identify problems with the implementation of the recommendations, to find solutions for it and implement these solutions; 2) role models will help their colleagues in performing the desired behaviour; 3) education to all workers will enhance knowledge about (the prevention of) hand eczema; 4) reminders will be placed at the department reminding workers to use the recommendations; 5) workers receive the same leaflet as the control group containing the recommendations. Data are collected by questionnaires at baseline and after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. The primary outcome measure is self-reported hand eczema. The most important secondary outcome measures are symptoms of hand eczema; actual use of the recommendations; sick leave; work productivity; and health care costs. Analyses will be performed according to the intention to treat principle. Cost-effectiveness of the MIS will be evaluated from both the societal and the employer's perspective. Discussion: The prevention of hand eczema is important for the hospital environment. If the MIS has proven to be effective, a major improvement in the health of health care workers can be obtained. Results are expected in 2014